Trust Us, Even If We Do Not Trust Ourselves

So, most of our readers have probably already heard about the advertisement that the Government of Pakistan took out in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. According to Dawn, the ad was first offered to the New York Times, which "refused to publish it, forcing Pakistani officials to go to a business newspaper with a specialised but influential readership."

Here is the ad (via the LongWarJournal):

Pakistan's 9/11 ad in the WSJ

Irrespective of the merits of the advertisement - and there are many who have questioned its design and message - one of the intriguing questions that arise is why the New York Times refused to publish it. A half-page ad is, after all, darn good revenue especially in these recessionary times.

According to the WSJ's own blog, which shrugged off the ad's chances of changing the anti-Pakistan narrative in the American media:

"The [New York] Times asked for “more clarity in the ad about who was placing it,” according to a spokeswoman for the newspaper. The Times did not hear back from the government and so has not yet run the ad, she said."

Well, our sources inform us that the problem about the source of the ad arose because neither the Pakistan Embassy in Washington nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) nor the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MoI&B) were the sources of the ad. In fact, our sources confirm that none of these three Pakistani government entities was even consulted about the ad. In fact, the ad, designed by the Pakistani advertising agency Midas, was placed directly from the Prime Minister's Secretariat.

Why, you might ask, would the Prime Minister's Secretariat bypass its own subordinate media departments and its representatives who are specifically tasked with international relations work? Could it be, as our sources indicate, that the advertisement was the first instance of the country's premier intelligence agency directly placing an advertisement in a foreign publication?

The question that the WSJ probably needs to answer is how, if the three obvious points of contact (Embassy, MoFA, MoI&B) for advertisements from the Government of Pakistan did not sign off on the ad, was it able to confirm that the ad was, in fact, placed by the Government of Pakistan. According to the WSJ blog, which also raises this question:

"The ad as printed in the Journal carries a line at the bottom in small font saying “Government of Pakistan” next to a web address for the government. A spokeswoman for the Journal declined to comment."

Is there something essentially wrong about the ad? Aside from quibbles about the precision of some of the figures, some of the cringe-worthy wording ("Promising Peace To The World"?) and the obsequious offering up of Pakistan to the Americans, no. Is it wrong to try and sway public opinion in the US to a better understanding of the suffering Pakistanis have gone through in the fight against Al Qaeda-type terrorism? Once again, no. Those convinced that Pakistan is playing an evil double game will obviously poke fun at some of the assertions of the ad but there is no doubt that the often unnuanced and simplistic American narrative, that ignores how Pakistanis view the maelstorm they are caught in and their own interests, is in dire need of a corrective.

But what does it say about the Pakistani State if its organs feel they need to bypass each other to get a point across that, ostensibly, all of them should be agreed upon? What does it say about how policies are made and implemented?

Then again, we might also point out that the US$150,000 apparently spent on running the ad in the WSJ could have been better utiltized for things with a currently slightly higher priority than a PR exercise.

The Return (and Resurgence) of Napier

The recent spate of violence, mayhem and bloodletting in Karachi has drawn a number of responses, ranging from the outraged to the resigned, the depressed and confused. And all of them are understandable on their own terms. It would be fair to say, however, that in a city as teeming, complex and diverse, there is no single truth about the causes for the flare-up that trumps all others. Every actor in this sordid saga can (and does) point to the actions of other actors as an excuse for their own villainy.

'The burnt out ends of smoky days' (Photo source: Times of Karachi)

If the MQM operates like a mafia, there is also no denying the underworld nexus that parties like the PPP and ANP are using to carve out their own slice of turf in the city. If Karachi's law enforcement is inefficient, corrupt and politicized, it is not an aberration from the rest of Pakistan where the writ of the state has been steadily eroded. If politicians are venal and self-serving about their political ends, this city has not been spared the shenanigans of the military's nefarious tactics to ensure they have the means to keep the political kettle boiling. If people from all over Pakistan stream to the city because of its higher professionalism, employment opportunities and avenues for making money, there are also those who resent the ever widening gap between the affluent and themselves. Where Karachi is Pakistan's most cosmopolitan and ethnically diverse city by far, its diversity also creates the conditions for easy friction between cultural identities and is a magnet for those who wish to take advantage of it. Add in the desire for political and economic clout to diminishing respect for the state's writ, the complexity of administering a megapolis in general and in times of a regional shadowy militancy in particular, severely strained resources and constrained availability of land and you have a truly volatile mixture.

Does this mean that the anarchy let loose on Karachi in recent days could not have been prevented? No, it definitely involved actors who benefited - at least in their perceptions - in some way from it and it was fueled by leaders without vision (some may argue, basic humanity) who believe the best route to getting what they want is brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind. But what it does mean is that these sort of spells will recur (as they have before) unless and until the issues that underlie these conflagarations are addressed in some cogent, cohesive manner and unless at least the majority of stakeholders recognize that the status quo will not hold. It is not just a matter of allaying the current insecurities of the MQM (as the PPP seems to believe) or satisfying the local political ambitions of the ANP. There are serious chronic issues to do with land-use, planning, administration, distribution of resources and law enforcement that need to be tackled. Otherwise new problems, one example of which is this, will keep rearing their heads.

But this is actually not what I wanted to address in this post. What I wanted to look at was an intriguing aside to the current flare-up, how the seemingly raging fires of political instability were suddenly damped down. Consider the following timeline:

August 3 (Just Past Midnight): MQM supremo Altaf Hussain issues a fiery statement, full of rhetoric, asking the people of Karachi to stock up on at least a month's rations (even if they need to sell valuables to do it) and to be ready for sacrifice for the 'cause'.

August 3 (Morning): Fears of what is implied in Hussain's speech lead to palpable tension in Karachi and a run on stores as people stock up for impending shut-downs and further violence.

August 3 (Afternoon): British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for South Asia Alistair Burt calls up Sindh Governor Dr Ishrat-ul-Ebad. According to the official press release, Mr Burt said:

"This morning I spoke to the Governor of Sindh Dr. Khan to expressed my concern at the continuing violence and loss of life that Karachi has faced in recent weeks.  I encouraged the Governor in his ongoing strong personal engagement to restore law and order.  I warned that inflammatory statements from any political party risked making the situation worse and that all political leaders and their parties have a duty to refrain from inciting violence and to reduce tensions and restore calm.  I reiterated the view of Her Majesty’s Government that the stability of Karachi is in the interests of all in Pakistan and the wider international community.  I said that peace and prosperity in Karachi was necessary to encourage further foreign direct investment which would be vital to Pakistan’s future economic growth and stability."

August 3 (Evening): Altaf Hussain makes another, milder speech, this time with nary a word about stocking up on rations. Even more intriguingly, he makes half the speech in English.

August 4: Altaf Hussain issues an unprecedented apology for his earlier speech, claiming his talk about stocking up on rations was misunderstood and that he never meant to offend anyone. He also appreciates the paramilitary Rangers' actions at Kati Pahari, the area at the centre of the storm. Conciliatory statements also come from the MQM's bete noir PPP Sindh Minister Zulfiqar Mirza who speaks respectfully about "Governor sahib" who he had dubbed a "bhagora" (fugitive) just a few days ago.

August 5: MQM members of parliament attend the Sindh Chief Minister's iftar party in a seemingly convivial mood, strengthening rumours that the MQM has come to an understanding with the PPP. President Zardari formally invites the MQM to yet again join the government.

Sindh CM Qaim Ali Shah with MQM leader of the 'opposition' Syed Raza Haroon at iftar (Photo: Whitestar/ Dawn) 

One can only speculate about what the exact reasons are for the British to take such a leading and active role in this reconciliation. Could it be that they were asked to do so? It's important to recall that anarchy in Karachi not only threatens the entire economy and stability of Pakistan (more than 70% of Pakistan's tax revenues are generated from the city) but also obviously port operations - which is the hub of the NATO supply lines into Afghanistan. It would also do well to recall that it would not be the first time that the British have played foot-soldiers for their allies. And as WikiLeaks has divulged, it's not the first time that the US and the UK have coordinated their efforts with regards to Karachi and the MQM either.

It could also well have to do with Britain's own interests in Pakistan too. After all, trade between the UK and Pakistan is well over 1 billion pounds (mutual direct investment adds about another 300 million pounds)  and has been rising significantly and more than 100 British companies operate in Pakistan including the giants Unilever, Shell, GlaxoSmithKline, Standard Chartered Bank, HSBC and Barclays. British pharmaceutical companies also control over 30% of the market share in Pakistan and Britain has also earmarked over 1.3 billion pounds in aid for Pakistan over the next 4 years.

But far more interesting would be to understand why the British have the leverage they do in the current situation and why they are likely to play an increasingly significant political role in the future. Consider the following simple facts:

* Altaf Hussain, Leader of the MQM: Lives in self-exile in London. Is now a British citizen with a British passport. The MQM's 'International Secretariat' is also based in London. And as slyly pointed out by journalist Abbas Nasir in his column in Dawn today, "the British government has acquired greater leverage over some of the political exiles on its soil because an amendment to the immigration laws in 2006 empowers it to revoke the nationality of any naturalised dual national if the decision was deemed for the 'public good.'"

* Asif Zardari, Co-Chairperson of the PPP: Has property in the UK including Rockwood, the infamous "Surrey Palace" (Abbas Nasir has reminded me that Rockwood was sold off to pay debts). Has a son and daughter studying in the UK.

* Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Chairperson of the PPP: Studying and living in the UK.

* Yousuf Raza Gilani, Prime Minister: Has a son studying in the UK.

* Nawaz Sharif, President of the PMLN: Has property in the UK including flats in super-posh Mayfair. Wife is currently under medical treatment in the UK. Keep in mind also the British assessment of Sharif's future as detailed in this secret US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

* Shahbaz Sharif, Chief Minister of the Punjab: Has property in the UK including at least one flat in Mayfair.

* Pervez Musharraf, head of APML: Lives with wife in London, has property there including a flat in Edgeware and is provided security by Scotland Yard.

* Imran Khan, Chairman PTI: Former wife and two sons are British citizens and live in London.


It pays to be even a former colonial power doesn't it? The US can try whatever it wants to gain influence in Pakistan but even it realizes that the British do have first mover advantage.

Bashira In Trouble

Most Pakistanis with an interest in the foreign press have heard of The Guardian but not The Telegraph. The Telegraph, a British publication informally known as the Torygraph to those who find still find British politics interesting, for example British people, American neocons and possibly Elmo from Sesame Street because that’s just the sort of Muppet he is, is the UK’s highest selling broadsheet. In politically correct terms that means it is the ‘house newspaper of the Conservative Party’. In other words it is the print refuge of choice for (mostly) white people who have issues with multiculturalism, single parents and a world that just does not understand how much (mostly) white people who may or may not have been conceived within the bounds of the blessed British isles have contributed to civilization itself dammit.

UK PM David Cameron: "building the negative narrative" apparently (Photo: PA/The Telegraph)

This Weltanschauung is aptly illustrated by two commentators whose reactions to UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s flying visit to Pakistan were published in its World and Politics sections on April 5th and April 6th. Both were irked by Cameron’s remarks to a group of Pakistani students and academics. Answering a question about how Britain could help resolve the Kashmir issue he said, “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

The first, Peter Oborne, was kind enough to consider justifications for PM Cameron’s inexcusable nod to the gods of veracity, saying:

“The Prime Minister was doubtless seeking to please a skeptical and perhaps hostile audience, angered by our military presence in Afghanistan. There was a smidgen of truth (though no more than that) in what he said. He was in the middle of a long and grueling trip, and may have felt tired and jet-lagged.”

The second, Ed West – who describes himself as ‘Prematurely Right-wing’ on his Twitter profile and thus saves me the effort of establishing his embryonic moronicness – was not so kind, and agreed with still other British voices who were calling Cameron ‘naïve’ and ‘schizophrenic’ and helpfully pointing out that looking back “50-odd years for the problems facing many post-colonial nations adds little to the understanding of the problems they face.” He further pointed out:

"Apologising only builds the negative narrative, so that Pakistanis keen to play on the downsides of British rule can now say to their countrymen: “Look, even their prime minister says so.” That’s human nature. And apologising while handing over hundreds of millions of pounds in aid certainly does not encourage gratitude – only resentment."

Both agreed that focusing for a second on all the things Britain might (or might not) have taken away from this rollicking continent of still rollicking natives – for example wealth, time, love, tenderness AND peace – was a needless distraction from all the things Britain had given it instead. These include, in no particular order, “parliamentary democracy, superb irrigation systems, excellent roads, the rule of law, the English language and, last but not least, the game of cricket.”

 Oborne and West: Tag team duo of the defenders of the British Empire

Mr. Oborne felt that over-education, in the form of years at Oxford University where he “read Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a degree course notorious for skimming the surface of understanding and historical knowledge,” was responsible for Mr. Cameron’s temporary lapse of reason. Mr. West felt that it was PM Cameron’s desire to be liked that was behind his “tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear.” Had PM Cameron been protected from this wishy washiness, he implied, much like the natives had once been protected from the evils of higher education in their own backyards, he would not have bounced like a mudskipper on the surface of diplomacy and focused instead on the things that British people really want to talk to Pakistanis about, i.e. our inexplicable fondness for the “Koran.” And “cousin marriages.”

Mr. Oborne felt that these extenuating circumstances, as well as the millions of pounds of aid his country offered us when twenty million of our people inconvenienced the entire world by going and internally displacing themselves, were reason enough for PM Cameron to never have to play “the politics of apology.” Mr. West went one further and added that the way his ancestors had chosen to “undermine traditional family, clan and religious structures and loyalties” should make it apparent why, for him, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Mr. Oborne’s editors at The Telegraph were less parsimonious with their use of the dreaded ‘S’ word, opting to title his piece “Sorry, but it’s not right to apologize.” Their gratuitous use of it caught up with them the next day though, and they had to resort to echoing the views of (possibly) a lot of its readers with the heading “Pakistan’s problem is that we did not make it British enough.” In the piece accompanying the latter headline, Mr. Ed West – apparently the Ed Wood of social commentary – weighed in with gems about how the linguistic apartheid enforced by “England, and a host of other, smaller countries in north-west Europe” had helped hostage populations free themselves from the shackles of “Urdu, Persian or Arabic”, replace them with English, and thus “create societies with wide circles of trust.” This is the reason, in his opinion, the world speaks English today. Nothing to do with the legacies of colonial imperialism and global power dynamics, you understand. Mr. West, who is also features editor of The Catholic Herald, omitted to mention that his forebears had also neglected to mention the safeword to the natives.

In a nod to another sadly unacknowledged trend the British gifted us with, i.e. a propensity for foreign correspondents, we turn now to our own resident Pyala in London, Bashira, for further insight into the matter...

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why Cameron in trouble?

Bashira in London: He go put foot in mouth instead of axe in head.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why saying sorry is wrong only?

Bashira in London: Because if you open floodgates the Indus will do the dirty with your plumbing only.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, they say we not British enough. How we get more British?

Bashira in London: More bad teeth. Why you think Lala bite ball only?


Khi Pyala: Bashira, why British columnists stupid like Pakistani columnists?

Bashira in London: Because that once angry generation of pseudo leftist radicals in the UK grew up and started leaning right when they realized viscerally introspective discourse on wrongs would not help their children gain entrance to public schools. The world goes further into lager every day. And when I say lager I mean pints not defensive wagon circles ala the Boers.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why they so angry about cousin marriages?

Bashira in London: Because inbreeding is the exclusive preserve of the monarchy (don’t be worry, I read these two from cue cards held up by cousin at SOAS)

Khi Pyala: Bashira, how they make sure this not happen again?

Bashira in London: That Cameron, next time he go talk to Pakistani primary school students instead of Pakistani academics.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why these chittas think denial is a river in Egypt still?

Bashira in London: Because that was Thames, this is now.

The Day After

I had hoped to put up this image which one of our Twitter friends (don't remember which one) had pointed us to, after a Pakistan win in yesterday's semi-final. But I think it's more appropriate than ever now. (Incidentally, I do not know who made it but if the designer is reading this and would like credit, let us know and we will credit you.)

Afridi: The Renaissance Man (Design: Komail Naqvi)

So, yes, India played far better than us on the day and deserved to win the match. But as, thankfully, most people in Pakistan have recalled, nobody, including myself, gave the Pakistan team much chance of even getting this far before the World Cup began. And for this, Shahid Afridi, the captain, and the team deserves our respect. Generally, despite the one major blip against New Zealand (for which we'll forever be grateful to Kamran Akmal), Pakistan played far beyond expectations and seemed, after a long, long, time, to be a united team.

Of course, it hurts to lose, especially to arch-rivals India, and especially after seemingly having the game within our grasp, but there is no shame. Okay, there should be shame about dropping a batsman like Tendulkar four bloody times, but you know what I mean. Afridi made good on his pre-World Cup promise of reaching at least the semis and for this we should celebrate and give the team its due. It's actually very heartening to see that most people, including the media, have taken the defeat in the spirit in which it should be taken. There should be introspection within the team (particularly about Kamran Akmal's future) but for once, hopefully, we will be able to use this a springboard for improvements for the future rather than nihilistic destruction.

I don't want to get into the details of the cricketing issues that surfaced in this match (others have already done so in fair detail) but I did have a couple of other thoughts about non-cricketing issues after the match which I would like to share.

1. Can we, like, get a list of all those astrologers, psychics, numerologists and "astropalmists" who predicted a Pakistan victory? You know, just so we know who to avoid? And at the very least, can the media stop referring to them before any big event? (Geo, to its credit, did take the lead on this, running a mocking package about them, including its own resident astrologist known as 'Mamoon', this morning.)

2. I don't wish to sound cruel (and animal-lovers please note, this is merely in jest) but as far as that unproven story about the Shiv Sena / predictions-vendor allegedly killing the parrot who predicted a Pakistan victory in Bombay, wouldn't you say they were sort of right in retiring the parrot? I mean I would never support the killing of any poor animal for such indiscretions but the parrot had obviously lost it. Moreover, the parrot in Karachi who also predicted a Pakistan victory, can you blame him/her after s/he'd heard about what supposedly happened in Bombay?

3. I hope it puts to rest all those tawdry (and frankly done one too many times) jokes about the jawaan Sheila, the badnaam Munni and the Pathan Afridi. Really. Please stop now.

4. If any credible story comes out about someone actually having bet on Tendulkar being dropped more than three times, I will personally ask Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to take suo moto notice. Beyond that, let's please not bring in claims of match-fixing this time. One team had to lose.

5. The one definite and huge down-side to the loss is of course seeing the idiotic brigade - Ansar Abbasi et al - back in business. (Even in supposed empathy with Afridi, he must bring up Raymond Davis.) It was good while it lasted but as they say on Twitter, FML!

6. Finally, to all those 'cricket-liberals' scaring us about the potential for doom and gloom because of the fervour around the match, I hope you realize the world did not end, no nuclear missiles were launched, and amazingly there was even no bad blood on the field. You know why? Because most people do take it as a game even if they are jumping up and down, putting war-paint on their faces and mocking their sporting rivals.

Good luck to both India and Sri Lanka for the final!


: : : UPDATE : : :

Actually there was one more thing I thought about which I forgot to put down: Where is Poonam Panday?

The Mohali Lead-up FacePalms

It's usually at times like these that I heave a sigh of relief that one does not have easy access to Indian news television channels in Pakistan. Because, really, I think adding them to the mix of frequent absurdity that Pakistan's news channels are capable of would be just too much to bear.

Have a gander at the following two clips. The first is from India TV which claims it has "earned a repute [sic] of credible reporting, courage, espousal of public interest and its [sic] unmatched delivery which is of a [sic] great value to all stakeholders." I truly do not know where to begin on this one. I suppose if one put intellectual absurdity mixed with an utter lack of knowledge and cricketing ignorance into a blender, added a cup of whacked out sensationalism with generous doses of bhang, you could, ostensibly arrive at something tasting like this 'report.'





The second clip is from a channel called CNEB, which, believe it or not, is short for Complete News and Entertainment Broadcast and which, according to its website, thinks Qamaruzzaman Kaira is the 'Home Minister of Pakistan.' It has this to say about itself:

"Complete News & Entertainment Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (CNEB) has launched its 24 x 7 Infotainment Television Channel in May 2008 with the vision of its Group Chairman Shri H. S. Sran, that hordes of channels has come up and large numbers are waiting for the permission from Ministry of Information & Broadcasting; only few survive because as per the industry sources, the viewers stick to the channels which are showing programs with a difference."

Um.... yeah, whatever, dude. Here's how they bring a difference:




Can we collectively say 'preparing the ground for a whining'? I mean, ok, an alleged bookie hanging out with the team is news in itself (if true, it should be probed by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the ICC shouldn't it?) but how is billions being bet on a match and the mere presence of a suspicious character translate automatically into confirmation of a fix? CNEB of course raises questions about the match by blaming the punters ("sattaybaaz"). But, er, wouldn't the team - or certainly some members of the team - have to be involved in a fix? How come CNEB never points that out?

Incidentally, I have heard the same argument, about the match allegedly being fixed, from people in Pakistan - except that in our versions, it's Pakistan that's going to lose. FFS! Get over yourselves folks. As if either India or Pakistan can never lose unless some behind-the-scenes hanky panky is involved. In our media's defence, at least we didn't put such a wildly speculative (and frankly, rondhoo) preemptive story on our mainstream channels. Yet. Note to Pakistani TV channels: do NOT attempt to replicate!


Tailpiece: At the other end of the spectrum are the 'cricket-liberals', who in the midst of the (justified) hysteria about the Mother Of All Matches, are going around beatifically pontificating about cricket diplomacy, cricket for peace and the win-win scenario for South Asia (whatever that is). Basically, people who probably think Umar Gul and Zaheer Khan or Virender Sehwag and Misbahul Haq are in the same league, and really don't care that much about cricket or their national teams. Ahmer Naqvi and Masuud Qazi have a hilarious post up on Clear Cricket to inform them about the Prescribed Etiquettes and Attitudes for TGME (The Greatest Match Ever). Do have a look.

America's Media War

Just in case you thought the Pakistani electronic media was unique in its bittter, on-screen, infighting, you might want to check out yesterday's flap between Fox News and CNN over reporting from Libya.

Here's what Fox News said about an officially-sponsored trip to view the damage to one of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's compounds, caused by the US/UK Tomahawk missile attacks. Having not actually got the footage that other news outlets managed to get, they accused the other journalists of allowing themselves to be used as "human shields" by the Libyan regime to prevent more attacks.

Here's how CNN correspondent Nic Robertson responded to those claims on Wolf Blitzer's programme:




Personally, I find Robertson's indignation that Western journalists could sometimes lie, have personal agendas, cover up for their professional failures and promote propagandistic drivel a bit... how shall I put it delicately?... naive. And to top it all off, we're talking Fox News here folks. But chalo, it's nice to hear someone in CNN (a great proponent of embedded journalism) has the same thoughts about 'one of their own' that most of us know as a truism about the media in general.

On a lighter note, do not miss this encapsulation of American foreign policy hypocrisy vis a vis 'freedom movements in the Middle East', brought to you by the sharpest satirical show in mainstream American media, The Daily Show.

The Daily Show - America's Freedom Packages
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

'Raymond Davis' - FAQ

Continuing moronic statements by trolls on this blog and some no doubt military establishment-goaded television anchorpersons have forced me to address - hopefully for the last time - certain basic issues to do with the whole 'Raymond Davis' saga. Unfortunately, such is the deterioration of our national discourse and perhaps of our educational system that not only are people often unable to grasp simple arguments but are willing, immediately and without understanding the nuances of the points being made, to ascribe ulterior motives to anyone presenting facts that go against popular opinion. So for the sake of clarity, I will attempt to make my points as questions and answers in bullet form (no pun intended). Roughly the same questions have come up repeatedly in earlier comments.

The man known as Raymond Davis in custody

1. Do I 'support' 'Raymond Davis'?

No. I hold no brief for him or others like him. Nor do I wish to see 'security contractors' / yahoos like him roaming around in Pakistan.


2. Do I think US interventionism is okay in Pakistan?

Personally, I think crying about US interference in Pakistan's affairs after the 'Raymond Davis' affair is not only cretinous but also hypocritical - there has been American interference in this country's internal affairs almost since it was created and which has been welcomed wholeheartedly by our establishment which benefits handsomely from it. Moreover, it will continue to benefit from it in the foreseeable future as well irrespective of the public stances it takes. Nevertheless, no, I don't think it has generally been a force for good in the past and it has usually been counter-productive in the present.


3. Do I want Raymond Davis to walk free after killing two Pakistanis and being involved in the death of a third?

It really does not matter what I, or anyone else, may want. There is a small issue of diplomatic conventions that Pakistan is a signatory to. If he does have diplomatic immunity, Pakistani courts cannot try him unless the US gives its consent. I do think he should have a fair trial for the killings but, if he does have diplomatic immunity, the best Pakistan can do is ask the Americans to try him in the US.


4. Am I still claiming 'Raymond Davis' has immunity after all that has come to light about him?

I am not claiming anything beyond pointing out what is already there in the legal conventions and whatever evidence has so far appeared. The basic question on which this hinges, as far as I can ascertain and as has been pointed out earlier, is whether 'Davis' was a member of the US Embassy staff in Islamabad - in which case the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 applies to him and he has blanket immunity - or a member of the US Consulate staff in Lahore - in which case the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 applies to him and he does not have blanket immunity. That determination is, in my opinion, the main one that needs to be made.


5. But he's an acknowledged spy! And he is a contractor, not a diplomat!

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts on this issue, long before the shocker (not!) of the acknowledgement that 'Davis' works for the CIA, it does not matter as far as the legal standing of diplomatic immunity is concerned. The Vienna Convention of 1961 (not the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations) grants the same privileges to an embassy's "technical and administrative staff" as diplomats. Of course there are spies working on 'cover posts' in all embassies and anyone who has any doubt should go ask the Pakistan Foreign Office about how many intelligence personnel are deputed in our foreign missions on cover posts. Should they all go round killing people and claiming immunity? And does diplomatic immunity confer the license to kill? Obviously not. But that doesn't change the legal position.


6. But what about Shah Mahmood Qureshi's claim that the Foreign Office had determined that 'Raymond Davis' did not have blanket immunity?

Mr. Qureshi or the Foreign Office has yet to state the evidence on which this claim was based. Indeed, the Foreign Office has yet to make that claim officially itself. They may have valid reasons, especially if the US had 1) not actually notified 'Davis' as a diplomat to the Foreign Office (contrary to what the Americans are now claiming which would mean also that their official letter is fabricated) or 2) If the US had notified him as attached to the Lahore Consulate rather than the Islamabad embassy. However, we have yet to hear of the reasoning. The Pakistan Foreign Office does indeed have the right to determine diplomatic status under Pakistan law, but obviously this has to be based on solid reasoning.

There have been some in the Pakistani press who have pointed to lacunae in the Pakistani law that the Foreign Office must 'approve' diplomatic status even after another state notifies someone as a diplomat (an approval that 'Davis' had apparently not received), and which do not grant diplomatic status to 'technical and administrative staff' of embassies. Moreover, they have claimed that Pakistani law takes precedence over international law (i.e. the Vienna Conventions). The Vienna Convention applicable to embassy staff (1961) itself only needs the 'sending' state to notify (there is no clause for approval) and, as pointed out before, applies equally to an embassy's technical and administrative staff. The common sense understanding of international law is that if a state ratifies an international treaty, it must ensure that its own laws comply with it. However, this is a matter of legal haggling and should this matter (of whether local law takes precedence over ratified international law) become a real issue, it would seem the International Court of Justice would have to be referred to, where in my humble opinion, if this is all that Pakistan's position is, its case would be weak.


7. Don't you think the US has been lying about 'Raymond Davis'? And don't you think the US media has been equally hypocritical by hiding facts it knew about him?

Yes and yes. Absolutely. The US government's response in the immediate aftermath of the incident was especially muddled and led to suspicions in the minds of most Pakistanis that it was trying to hide its guilt (which it probably was). The US media's capitulation to American government pressure to withhold information about 'Davis'' real activities has been particularly shameful. The Pakistani media should not be emulating it.


8. Don't you think there is more to this issue than what we already know?

Almost certainly. My analysis is based purely on what is already in the public domain. But it needs to be pointed out that so are the claims of almost everyone else in the media and my criticism of some of them is predicated on simply pointing out the flaws in their arguments.


9. So what should Pakistan have done? Do you want Pakistan to take this lying down?

There were a couple of recourses available to Pakistan before this sorry saga unfolded. One, it should not have given 'Raymond Davis' a visa if it had any doubts about him. Even after it granted him a visa, it could have expelled him from the country if it found his activities incompatible with diplomatic norms. However, if 'Davis' indeed has diplomatic immunity, all it can do now - aside from asking the US to lift it - is to declare him persona non grata and expel him and request the US to try him in its courts.

 Everybody hates 'Raymond'

What we are seeing, unfortunately, is a whipping up of emotionalism and fanciful conspiracy theories to cover up the dire incompetence and / or collusion of our security services. There are claims now that the visas were granted without proper checks because the security services were cut out of the loop in foreign capitals by the political establishment. First of all, if this is even true, why was this not raised as an issue at the time? 'Davis'' first visa was issued in 2009. He received two subsequent visas in 2010, both from Islamabad. Were our security services sleeping? Or are they so riddled with bureaucracy that their flagging of a violation of norms took until 2011 to trickle up to the relevant officers?

Secondly, even if one accepts that our security services were cut out of the loop in the grant of visas, what about the entire time 'Davis' and others like him were living in Pakistan and conducting their "subversive" activities? Are we to take it that, in the almost two years he kept coming in and out of Pakistan, our intelligence was so incompetent that it never once spotted his activities and flagged them? Shouldn't they have paid particular attention to people who allegedly bypassed normal security clearances? It would seem that all this hoopla now is to cover up the fact that our security services had dropped the ball.

We are now hearing all sorts of stories about 'Davis' - from the silly story in The News by Marianna Babar about his addiction to niswar (as if chewing tobacco or snuff is a rarity among US servicemen particularly from areas like Virginia state), to claims in the Express Tribune that 'Davis' was orchestrating bombings by the Pakistani Taliban (sourced to anonymous intelligence personnel) to claims on Geo and in The Nation (sourced from some alleged Russian intelligence report) that he was involved in supplying nuclear material to Al Qaeda in order to frame Pakistan. We should be clear about one thing. Regardless of the authenticity (or likely not) of these stories, they are basically a smokescreen that obscure the real issues of this case. They matter not a whit in whether 'Raymond Davis' is tried in Pakistan or whether we are forced to expel him without a trial.


10. Should Pakistan reassess its ties with US intelligence and its covert operations programme?

By all means. But Pakistan's establishment should do so in a cool, logical manner, having weighed the consequences of its actions. This should not be done by whipping public opinion into a frenzy through post-facto planting of stories and side-tracking issues. You want to kick out Xe (nee Blackwater) operatives from Pakistan? Absolutely do so. Why wait until they cause damage?


Footnote: You may want to read this piece from Foreign Policy that came in as I was writing. It deals with what may have allegedly been agreed between the Pakistani and American military's top officials particularly regarding this case in a closed-door meeting in Oman yesterday. If this report is correct, you may actually very soon see a complete change of tone in the media as well.

A Brief History of Diplomatic Immunity (Updated)

Since we Pakistanis often suffer simultaneously from the twin demons of megalomania and paranoia - verily we are better than everyone else and that is why everyone is out to get us - we often also look at history through a rather selective and distorted lens. Unfortunately, none typify this mindset more than the doyens and doyennes of the Pakistani electronic media, in whom a curious mix of hyper-patriotism, half-baked information, sincere ignorance and arrogant bluster seems generally to hold sway.

Take the issue of the day on Pakistani media: whether the American known by his apparent pseudonym "Raymond Davis" - who shot dead two men in Lahore - can be tried by Pakistani courts or whether the US government has any right to claim diplomatic immunity for him. I am not going to offer my own opinion on this because, for better or worse, this is an issue for the US and Pakistani states to sort out. (I should, however, point out that, personally speaking, I do not think armed Americans or armed anyone should be roaming around the streets of Pakistan.)

But having seen numerous commentaries on television where emotive claims have been made about how Americans have not respected diplomatic immunity in their own cases, how immunity does not extend to serious crimes or how Pakistani diplomats have never been extended this kind of privilege, I just want to direct readers to a few examples.

Here's The Independent reporting in 1997 about a case in which a drunk Georgian diplomat killed a 16-year-old girl in New York with his reckless driving and the US requested a waiver from immunity for him. (The paper reports that Georgia was unlikely to approve the request though it actually was approved at the discretion of the Georgian government and the diplomat was sentenced for 7-21 years. He was transferred back to Georgia after serving three years [link courtesy @qabacha].) The piece also cites other incidences of less egregious crimes by diplomats that go unpunished. Appropriately for us, the story is titled "Can A Diplomat Get Away With Murder?"

You may also recall the shooting dead of British constable Yvonne Fletcher apparently by Libyan embassy staff in London in 1984 as well as the wounding of 11 others. Diplomatic immunity allowed the staff not to be prosecuted at all, though Britain subsequently broke off diplomatic relations with Libya. Fifteen years later, Libya accepted "general responsibility" and paid compensation, though some experts continued to question whether the police officer's death was actually caused by someone shooting from within the embassy.

Coming to Pakistani diplomats invoking diplomatic immunity, let us recall the case of our Ambassador to Spain, Mr. Haroon-ur-Rashid Abbasi, who Pakistan withdrew from his post in 1975 without allowing prosecution when heroin was discovered in his suitcase.

Let us also recall the case of our longtime permanent rep at the UN, Ambassador Munir Akram in 2003 who was accused of assault by his then girlfriend. The US also asked Pakistan to waive immunity in that case, which Pakistan did not oblige. (The case was eventually settled when Mr Akram persuaded his girlfriend to withdraw the charges against him).

So, as they say, au contraire, my friends.

Some final points, and please remember that we are only taking issue with the 'facts' of the case as presented in the media. Television analysts have almost unanimously claimed that "Davis" did not have a 'diplomatic visa'. It might behoove someone to ask our media pundits if they have ever actually seen a Pakistani diplomatic visa. From our own investigations, it seems Pakistani visas have no such specified category of 'Diplomatic Visa' (unlike some other countries). In fact, according our sources, all foreign diplomats receive Pakistani visas with the marking "Purpose of Visit:" "Official" or "Official Business" (not Official / Business, another category that does not exist) on their diplomatic passports. If they carry such a visa on their diplomatic passport and the Foreign Office has been so notified, they receive diplomatic immunity during their stay in Pakistan.

Here are some scans of Davis' passport as presented on DawnNews' Reporter programme...

This is the marking on his passport, which clearly states that he is on "diplomatic assignment" (click picture to enlarge):

This is his current visa, issued incidentally not in Washington (as claimed by Shireen Mazari on Geo and Syed Talat Hussain on DawnNews) but in Islamabad:

In fact, "Davis" only once received a three-month visa in 2009 from Washington. His subsequent 4-month visa in 2010 and his current 2-year visa were both issued within Pakistan.

Kamran Khan on Geo also went to great lengths to 'break the news' that "Davis" is a spy who works for the CIA. He almost certainly is. But not only is that not amazing insight, we have to ask, so? Is his actual work the issue of contention here? As former ambassador Zafar Hilaly pointed out on Dunya, spooks get posted on "cover postings" abroad all the time, including by the Pakistan Foreign Office, and they all receive diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. Let's at least be clear what we are arguing about.


: : : UPDATES : : :

There have been some comments questioning some of my assertions in this post, which have been answered in the comments section. You may want to have a look.

A couple of other cases have been brought to our notice which we are also sharing. The first is the case in January 2001 of a Russian diplomat who killed a woman in Canada while driving drunk. A couple of quotes from this piece are worth pointing out.

"Andrey Knyazev was charged with criminal negligence causing death, impaired driving, failing to provide a breath sample, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Knyazev immediately claimed diplomatic immunity and on Monday, Russia denied Canada's request to lift it. [Russian Ambassador Vitaly] Churkin urged Canadians not to judge all Russians on the actions of one man. But he defended his government's right to recall Knyazev, saying it's tradition and common practice in the diplomatic community. “Many people are not happy that we didn't lift the diplomatic immunity," Churkin said. "The Canadian government has expressed its displeasure but recognized that this is our right.""

And this bit of wisdom from Canada's Foreign Minister that Pakistanis may also want to understand:

"[The] tragedy has raised questions about the use of diplomatic immunity to escape prosecution. But Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley says he will not use this case to press for changes. "There's an old saying among lawyers that hard cases make bad law," Manley said following a cabinet meeting Tuesday. "I think that (revising diplomatic rules) is something that we'd want to look at in a broader circumstance, not in the situation which we're in now," he said."

Incidentally, Shahid Saeed has also pointed out two further cases where Pakistani diplomats have invoked diplomatic immunity. The first involved Col Mohammad Hamid, a military attache in Pakistan's High Commission in London, who was caught in 2000 having sex with a prostitute in his car in a public place. When caught, Hamid immediately invoked diplomatic immunity and therefore could not be arrested. Here's an Indian Express report of the incident, which was also reported in the English papers.

The second involved the arrest in April 2001 in Kathmandu of Pakistan's first secretary Mohammad Arshad Cheema. 16kg of high-intensity explosive RDX were recovered from his residence. The Indian government believed him to be also linked to the hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 which resulted in the freeing from Indian prisions of (subsequently Daniel Pearl murder accused) Omar Saeed Sheikh and Jaish-e-Mohammad leader 'Maulana' Masood Azhar. This report from the respected Indian magazine Frontline presents a wider and less one-sided perspective on the arrest. It also provides evidence of two things we already asserted in our post: that spies (and even military operatives) are often posted by foreign governments under diplomatic cover and that diplomatic immunity extends even to grave crimes. Cheema was expelled from Nepal rather than be prosecuted even though, by any definition, possessing high intensity explosives for ulterior motives is a very serious charge in any country.

Cutting Through the Emotionalism

Can we just express how refreshing it was to watch Najam Sethi's first appearance on Geo tonight? In the middle of the hyperventilating cacophony surrounding the shooting to death of two men in Lahore by a contractor of the US embassy (and the death of a third in a hit and run accident apparently at the hands of an American consulate vehicle), Sethi began his new programme Aapas Ki Baat with the warning that he wanted to put emotionalism aside and analyse the incident only in terms of the facts. That in itself is an all too rare approach on our television screens these days. But what followed was close to a masterclass for other television anchors on how to impart clear, precise information with a logical, rather than emotional, analysis.

Not only did Sethi cite the actual clauses of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity (which Pakistan has ratified) that have been furiously talked about but never actually specifically referenced, but also put into context the whole issue in light of contemporary history and geopolitical realities. Now, others may question his interpretations of the Vienna Convention or the heretofore unknown 'facts' he presented as definite realities (we have no way of determining their veracity but he did stake his reputation on their authenticity), but I hope such challenges, if they do come, will be based on proof rather than vague emotionalism. His main contentions were:

1) Irrespective of a non-diplomatic visa (which seems to have become the main issue for some channels), a diplomatic passport - as the US claims the killer has - may still grant the man known as Raymond Allen Davis* diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. [*This is assumed to be a fake name.]

2) The Vienna Convention actually grants immunity to diplomats (and their technical staff) from ALL criminal prosecution. No diplomat or foreign mission operative may be arrested by a host country, no matter what their crime (except in cases of property). (You may verify this from Clause 29-31 of the Convention.)

3) Since the American government has claimed diplomatic immunity for Davis, the Pakistan government must either accept their claim or the Pakistan Foreign Office - as the constitutional authority to decide such matters - must dispute this status. The courts are not the arbiters of the Vienna Convention under Pakistan's own constitution.

4) By claiming to leave the matter in the hands of the courts or the Punjab government, the Pakistan Foreign Office - and by extension the Federal government - is in violation of Pakistan's own constitution which details how issues of diplomatic immunity are to be handled. The Punjab police and Punjab government were wrong only to the extent that they should have referred the matter immediately to the US Consulate or the Pakistan Foreign Office before arresting Davis.

5) There are some 50-60 such contractors working for the US Embassy in Pakistan, who are all Blackwater-type operatives and whose job involves spying and ferreting out leads to trace Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. Under a secret treaty signed by the military government of General Pervez Musharraf, a Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) allows such operatives to work in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. The important thing to remember here is that the military and the intelligence agencies are fully on board about this and know full well the mandate of these operatives. (This claim by Sethi, if true, of course flies in the face of those who have recently been painting Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani as the principal villain in granting visas to these operatives, as if such visas are not overseen and approved by the ISI. It also means that those who point out that the Vienna Convention applies only to the discharge of official duties by diplomats and that Davis could obviously not be on any official mission at Mozang Chowk in Lahore, could be countered by the simple assertion by the US Embassy that he was.)

6) In case the Pakistan Foreign Office does decide to dispute diplomatic immunity to Davis, it will probably have to bear the brunt of reciprocal action from the US for reneging on a bilateral / international treaty.

7) Even if diplomatic immunity is denied to Davis, he will most probably be acquitted by the courts since his plea of self-defence will be very strong. As evidence for this contention, Sethi cited his own information that the two men killed by Davis were indeed brandishing weapons, that they were actually shot in the chest or on the side (contrary to news reports of their being shot in the back) and the context of previous attacks on foreigners in Pakistan and the atmosphere of fear that they have created.

Incidentally, Sethi does not address the death of the third man who was run over but it bears recalling that Davis is not charged in that case and the US Consulate has refused to acknowledge that its vehicle was involved. Sethi was also at pains to clarify that he neither condoned Davis' actions nor that he supported such infiltration of secret American agents into Pakistan. In fact, he also condemned such commandos roaming freely around Pakistan under the guise of diplomatic cover. But the solidity of his programme rested on the fact that he was able to separate out a dispassionate analysis of a given situation from the patriotic impulse that seems to overtake our other television analysts.

This does not mean, in any sense, that this issue will not become a hot political issue, particularly serving as a lightning-rod for popular disaffection with American policy but also helping political actors from making opportunistic capital off it. Or that the Peoples Party government is not now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sethi himself acknowledges this. But it is good to have more than just one side of the debate, particularly when that one side is often also misinformed.

For those who missed the programme, I am attaching the clips below. But first it might also be useful to see how another programme on the same channel, Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath, dealt with the issue, just in the previous hour, and which trotted out that doyenne of hyperventilation and hyper-patriotic confused thinking, Ms. Shireen Mazari, to make its point (the segment begins around 1:10 and ends around 11:30).

Don't miss how Ms. Mazari fudges the issue of diplomatic immunity by referring to a waiver in other cases (which obviously implies immunity). Remarkably this was not even the worst fudge of an analysis on our screens.

In stark contrast, here's the full Najam Sethi programme:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

I suppose kudos to Geo are also in order for finally bringing some rationality to their programming. See? It's not all that bad.

Going for a Wikileak

Isn't is quite remarkable that almost none of the major newspapers in Pakistan thought that the 'leader of the Muslim Ummah' King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the 'brotherly Muslim countries' of UAE and Qatar egging on the United States to bomb their supposed sibling in faith, the Islamic Republic of Iran - as revealed by Wikileaks - was worthy of any major headline?

Without fail, all of them buried that bit in the secondary 'catch-lines', if at all, with possibly only the Express Tribune and Nawai Waqt attaching it some real significance. Most focused on Abdullah's views on Asif Ali Zardari, while Dawn and the Urdu Express decided that the American plan to take enriched uranium fuel out of Pakistan was the most newsworthy.

Here's how some of the main newspapers' front pages looked today:

Dawn:

Jang:

The News:

The Nation:

Nawai Waqt:

Express:

Express Tribune:

Pakistan Today:

(Apologies for not having The Daily Times up here but they still don't seem to have an e-paper on the web.)

Okay, so obviously in Pakistan, the leaks directly connected to this country are of most immediate interest to people here. But judged purely on the level of news worthy of geo-strategic importance and with potentially massive consequences, wouldn't you say the Saudi desire to take out Iran is slightly bigger than Abdullah thinking Zardari is a loser? Of course, that may be just my personal news sense but I still do find it intriguing that no one else in Pakistan's print media shares it.

Coming to non-subjective issues, however, trust The News' Group Editor Shaheen Sehbai to muck up in the few paras he pens for the main story in his paper. He writes:

"As part of millions of documents dumped on the Internet, Wikileaks put one cable, which gave details of what King Abdullah really thought about President Zardari.Talking to an Iraqi official about the Iraqi PM Nuri Al-Maliki, King Abdullah said: “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” “That man” was Asif Zardari."

Er, no Mr Sehbai. When you're "talking about the Iraqi PM Nuri Al-Maliki", you're not actually talking about Asif Zardari. Please get over your obsessions, they are really affecting your thought processes. Or at least learn to read properly.

Reporting For The Gallery?

Okay, are we missing something here? Are Pakistanis fooling themselves or is it the Americans who are playing to their domestic gallery?

Check out the contrasting tone and content of how the currently on-going US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue meetings in Washington were reported by the American establishmentarian Foreign Policy magazine blog yesterday and Pakistani papers today...

First the FP blog piece:

In surprise appearance, Obama delivers tough love message to visiting Pakistani officials

Posted By Josh Rogin   Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 4:42 PM

"Dozens of U.S. and Pakistani officials are meeting this week at the State Department in 13 different working groups spanning all elements of the U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue, but the real action is in a few, select side meetings, where participants tell The Cable that the Obama team is taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.

One key meeting Wednesday afternoon was between National Security Advisor in-waiting Tom Donilon and what's known as the "core" group of Pakistani officials: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, and Ambassador Husain Haqqani.

President Barack Obama dropped in on that meeting and stayed for 50 minutes, according to an official who was there, and personally delivered the tough love message that other top administration officials have been communicating since the Pakistani delegation arrived. Obama also expressed support for Pakistan's democracy and announced he would invite Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to the White House in the near future.

Earlier Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped in unannounced on another meeting between Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Kayani. She delivered the message that Washington's patience is wearing thin with Pakistan's ongoing reluctance to take a more aggressive stance against militant groups operating from Pakistan over the Afghan border. A similar message was delivered to Kayani in another high-level side meeting Wednesday morning at the Pentagon, hosted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, two senior government sources said.

The message being delivered to Pakistan throughout the week by the Obama team is that its effort to convince Pakistan to more aggressively combat groups like the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba will now consist of both carrots and sticks. But this means that the U.S. administration must find a way incentivize both the Pakistani civilian and military leadership, which have differing agendas and capabilities.

"The Obama side is calculating that Pakistan's military can deliver on subjects important to the U.S. but doesn't want to, while the civilian leadership in Pakistan wants to, but isn't able," said one high-level participant who spoke with The Cable in between sessions.

The carrots are clear. A State Department official confirmed to The Cable that the two sides will formally announce on Friday a new $2 billion military aid package for Pakistan, focusing mostly on items that can be used for counterterrorism. Unspecified amounts of new funding for the reconstruction effort related to the Pakistani flood disaster are also on the table. In exchange, the United States not only wants increased Pakistani military operations in North Waziristan and Baluchistan, but also increased operational flexibility for U.S. special forces operating inside Pakistan's borders.

The sticks are less clear. Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad argued in a New York Times op-ed Tuesday that the Obama administration should threaten to take down terrorist havens in Pakistan, without Islamabad's consent if necessary. The Carnegie Endowment's Ashley Tellis wrote that the United States should condition aid to Pakistan on increased cooperation and even consider throwing more support toward India's role in Afghanistan, an idea the Pakistanis despise.

The timing of these op-eds and the change in the Obama administration's tone is not being seen by many as a coincidence.

The Pakistanis believe that their extensive efforts to expand military operations in South Waziristan don't get enough recognition in Washington. They also say privately that whatever incentives the United States is offering are not enough to compensate for the huge political and security risks that would come with a full-on assault on insurgent groups they have tacitly supported for decades.

Hanging over the whole discussion are reports that the United States is supporting and even providing escorts for the reconciliation talks in Kabul between the Afghan government, led by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and senior Taliban officials. The New York Times reported Wednesday that these talks were going on without the approval or involvement of the Pakistani government, ostensibly to prevent elements of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from moving to thwart them.

"Pakistan is still resisting [moving on groups in North Waziristan] because it still hasn't fully finished with its ongoing operations [in South Waziristan] and also because it doesn't know what will happen with the talks with the Taliban and would much rather not antagonize the Haqqani network at this juncture," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.

Nawaz noted that the Strategic Dialogue with Pakistan has now reached the third set of meetings, and that there is more pressure to show concrete results to validate the need for such a high-level format. "I hope there will be some clarity on what the objectives are on both sides and also some clarity on red lines so we don't have to relive this movie again and again," he said.

Nawaz also predicted that another point of contention will permeate the chatter in the hallways between Pakistani and American interlocutors -- Pakistan's desire to have Obama visit sometime soon.

"The big underlying issue that won't be on the agenda but will probably be discussed is President Obama's upcoming visit to India and that he won't be coming to Pakistan," he said. "It will point to the imbalance in the relationship."

In a read out, the White House said that Obama has committed to visit Pakistan some time in 2011.

Qureshi, Holbrooke, and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah will talk about all these issues at a joint Brookings/ Asia Society event Wednesday evening."

Now, take a look at how The News reported it today:

Obama reiterates support to Pak democracy

Updated at: 430 PST,  Thursday, October 21, 2010

Sami Ibraham

"WASHINGTON: President Barack Hussain Obama has said the United States will not compromise on democracy in Pakistan and will continue its all possible assistance. He said this during an unscheduled meeting with the Pakistani delegation here on Tuesday afternoon (Wednesday night Pakistan Standard Time).

The delegation comprised Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh and Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani was also present.

President Obama said the US wants stability in Pakistan and will provide all possible assistance to strengthen the Pakistan armed forces. He said Washington would not compromise on democracy in that country and continue friendship with the people of Pakistan. Obama said that during the tenure of President Asif Ali Zardari, relations between the United States and Pakistan saw an improvement.

“I believe Mr Qureshi your efforts are very fruitful,” he told the foreign minister. Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, while talking to reporters after the meeting, said it was a very successful meeting with President Obama and the results will speak for itself. “I believe that it is a step towards a very positive direction,” he added.

Sources told this correspondent that President Obama also praised efforts of Pakistan armed forces in the war against terrorism.

According to official news agency, US Defense leaders met on Wednesday with Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and discussed military-to-military partnership and security assistance as part of the third US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy met with Gen Kayani and members of his staff on Wednesday morning.

Morrell said during the meeting, Gates expressed the department’s appreciation and recognition of the Pakistani military’s contributions and sacrifices in combating terror in Pakistan and conducting counterinsurgency operations there.

Gates said that “we are, of course, committed to the security and development of Afghanistan over the long term, but beyond Afghanistan and the important role Pakistan plays in the ultimate successful outcome in that country, we wish to build a long-term, wide-ranging “relationship” with Pakistan on its own merits,” Morrell said.

The Press Secretary said Gates also apologised for the inadvertent attack on a border guard post that killed three Pakistani soldiers in September.

“He said it was unintentional, and we are working with Pakistan to ensure it never happens again. He expressed his condolences to the families of the fallen soldiers,” Morrell added.

Morrell said the meeting also covered the need to better coordinate operations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. “We’ve been doing a much, much better job of that for many, many months now,” he said, but this incident clearly indicates there is more work to be done, and there was a resolve and commitment to do the hard work that it takes to better coordinate our actions on both sides of the border.

The discussion also featured security assistance topics, including Coalition Support Funds, the Pakistani counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund and Foreign Military Sales. On Wednesday, the Federal Information and Broadcasting Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira led the Pakistani team in discussions on public diplomacy and information technology with top US officials at the State Department.

The information minister was assisted Secretary Information Mansur Sohail and Secretary Information Technology Naguibullah Malik. Under Secretary of State Judith Michale was leading the United States.

Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and Minister for Agriculture Nazar Muhammad Gondal discussed expanding cooperation in water and agricultural fields on Wednesday.

Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh and Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar are also part of the high-level Pakistani delegation. Pakistan is likely to press its demand for talks on getting civilian nuclear technology from the United States. Afghanistan reconciliation process is also likely to figure in discussions.

The dialogue takes place amid reports that the Obama administration is putting final touches on a security assistance package totaling as much as $2 billion over five years to help Pakistan fight extremists on its border with Afghanistan.

The US media says the aid is expected to be announced later this week and aims to address Pakistan’s insistence it does not have the capability to go after terrorists and needs more support from the United States.

The aid will help the Pakistanis purchase helicopters, weapons systems and equipment to intercept communications. It falls under the US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants and loans to countries to purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States, say US media reports."

This is what Dawn had to say:

Obama expresses desire to expand strategic relations

By Our Correspondent

Thursday, 21 Oct, 2010

        

"WASHINGTON, Oct 20: US President Barack Obama met the Pakistani delegation at the White House on Wednesday and expressed his desire to expand strategic ties between the two countries.

A senior Obama administration official told Dawn that the Pakistani delegation included Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Finance Minister Hafeez Sheikh, Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar and Ambassador Husain Haqqani.

“President Obama assured the Pakistani delegation that the US was aware of Pakistan’s concerns about recent developments in the Pak-Afghan region and had no desire to harm its interests,” said a senior diplomatic official who did not want to be identified.

“President Obama also said that he has a special interest in Pakistan and wants a stable, democratic and economically strong Pakistan,” the official said.

The one-hour-15-minute meeting focused on all major issues being discussed in the three-day US-Pakistan strategic dialogue which began in Washington on Wednesday.

Earlier, President Obama met his senior advisers for the Pak-Afghan region and discussed with them the strategic dialogue and the situation in Afghanistan.

The meeting followed talks between representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban in Kabul. In his monthly war cabinet with top civilian and military advisers, President Obama also received an update on latest operations in his high-stakes troop surge strategy.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Taliban leaders at the “highest level” were involved in the contacts and that they were being offered safe passage by Nato troops from their sanctuaries in Pakistan.

In one case, Taliban leaders crossed the border and boarded a Nato aircraft bound for Kabul, the paper said, though added that most of the discussions had taken place outside the Afghan capital.

The White House has backed Afghan efforts to talk with elements of the Taliban, even as the US military ratchets up the intensity of the surge and insurgent attacks reap a heavy toll among foreign troops.

Those who attended the Af-Pak meeting at the secure White House situation room included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, the incoming US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter and the outgoing National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Incoming National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, National Security Council’s Af-Pak coordinator Douglas Lute, Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen James Cartwright, Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell and Centcom Commander Gen James Mattis also attended the meeting.

US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and Isaf Commander Gen David Petraeus participated by video-conference."

I don't know about anyone else but I have the distinct feeling someone's giving their readers false comfort. I just don't know who.